Author
Topic: Development of 5Dmk2 (Read 4964 times)

Just came into my mind before the launch of 5Dmk2, were there a lot of disappoint on the 5D AF focus? If yes, why there isn't much improvement done on the mk2? I wonder will mk3 be given at least the 7d AF system.

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

There wasn't disappointment per se with the original, given it was a first gen, and few rivaled it at the time, but people were hoping it would have a new AF in the mark 2. People were very disgruntled that it got the same af as the mark 1 but was willing to forgive with the other improvements.

Back when the 5D Classic came out, people were so pleasantly stunned that Canon crammed a full-frame sensor into a body roughly the same size as a 20D, at less than 1/2 the price of a 1DsII, that no one dared complain about the AF system. Back then, if you wanted a full-frame sensor you had to pay $8,000 for a pro body. People are pretty spoiled these days and come to expect cameras like the 5D/5DII and D700/D800, but Canon pretty much invented the affordable, light-weight, full-frame camera. Plus, the AF system wasn't that bad by 2005 standards.

On a side note, anyone that shot Nikon back then was an idiot That said, it's nice to see how much the competition has stepped it up since then.

Logged

briansquibb

Just came into my mind before the launch of 5Dmk2, were there a lot of disappoint on the 5D AF focus? If yes, why there isn't much improvement done on the mk2? I wonder will mk3 be given at least the 7d AF system.

The AF system on the 5DII may have its limitations but it is still an accurate AF system so does job in the environment which it was expected to work - weddings, studio, landscapes etc. It also has the ability to AF in low light (on the centre AF point) where others give up.

The AF system is pretty much the same as the film cameras (except the top pro versions) which is where a lot of the customers came from as the 21mp gave 'film resolution in digital'. At its launch the 5DII the AF system was 'middle of the road' but has now fallen behind in peoples' expectations after 4 years of significant progress (like in the current 7D, and even the 40D had (minor but significant) improvements)

I think to sum up I would say that in my opinion the 5DII AF is not flawed as it works reliably and accurately but has limitations that current models have long surpassed for general use. In my opinion to 5DII should have been designed with the same AF as the 50D. I had a 50D at the same time as my 5DII and in day to day use in good light there was nothing betwen them, it was just in poor light when the non central points of the 5DII started to struggle.

I think the skills of the 5DII user base has changed so that they now are less able than the film users who would have found the AF system very acceptable (I am one of those)

With the next generation 5DII I am sure we will find the AF will be significantly improved - it is one area which Canon can make major improvements on the 5DII. Perhaps we will get autofocus for film users as well. The sensor is very close to the magic (for video people) 2k, so perhaps an updated sensor will come in too (perhaps also with better high iso performance too). The introduction of the Digic 5 processor might mean a small increase of fps to 5. These changes would mean the new generation 5D would have a higher spec than the venerable 1Ds3

nicko

Would anyone here be able to explain what it really is that the 7D does differently from the 5D that makes it so much better? Like many people here (probably), I learned to take pictures with a manual camera, and I am still surprised that the camera will do all that work for me. I don't understand why more "focus points" is any better.

The 5D MK II was aimed at wedding photography, not action or sports. Those who wanted it to be something else, were disappointed. The camera has so many other good attributes, that if Canon were to put in a more sophisticated autofocus system, it would have undermined 1D/1DS MK III sales, so Canon did not.

Its no different than holding back high end features in a automobile that is targeted to the low or middle price range, manufacturers want you to buy the higher profit model with the nicer features.

However, Canon did listen, and came out with the 7D a year later, and it had greatly improved autofocus. Its very likely that any new 5D ?? model will also have greatly improved autofocus. If it sells more cameras, they will do it. We likely would have had new bodies last year, except the earthquake and other disasters spoiled the plans.

Picsfor

Just came into my mind before the launch of 5Dmk2, were there a lot of disappoint on the 5D AF focus? If yes, why there isn't much improvement done on the mk2? I wonder will mk3 be given at least the 7d AF system.

The AF system on the 5DII may have its limitations but it is still an accurate AF system so does job in the environment which it was expected to work - weddings, studio, landscapes etc. It also has the ability to AF in low light (on the centre AF point) where others give up.

The AF system is pretty much the same as the film cameras (except the top pro versions) which is where a lot of the customers came from as the 21mp gave 'film resolution in digital'. At its launch the 5DII the AF system was 'middle of the road' but has now fallen behind in peoples' expectations after 4 years of significant progress (like in the current 7D, and even the 40D had (minor but significant) improvements)

I think to sum up I would say that in my opinion the 5DII AF is not flawed as it works reliably and accurately but has limitations that current models have long surpassed for general use. In my opinion to 5DII should have been designed with the same AF as the 50D. I had a 50D at the same time as my 5DII and in day to day use in good light there was nothing betwen them, it was just in poor light when the non central points of the 5DII started to struggle.

I think the skills of the 5DII user base has changed so that they now are less able than the film users who would have found the AF system very acceptable (I am one of those)

With the next generation 5DII I am sure we will find the AF will be significantly improved - it is one area which Canon can make major improvements on the 5DII. Perhaps we will get autofocus for film users as well. The sensor is very close to the magic (for video people) 2k, so perhaps an updated sensor will come in too (perhaps also with better high iso performance too). The introduction of the Digic 5 processor might mean a small increase of fps to 5. These changes would mean the new generation 5D would have a higher spec than the venerable 1Ds3

As one of those from the film days - i can appreciate what you're saying. I would be happy if it were down t using freznel and split screen focusing - but it's not.

Like other manufacturers, Canon has moved into the multi AF point focusing system, and we've some how been forced to adapt to it. I don't mind adapting (like ihave from film to digital) - but at least provide the proper tools for the job.

Wedding and portrait photographers often photograph with the camera in porterait position - so it seems only right to expect a decent AF point to use with the camera in that position. And that's where my gripe comes from...

I could happily survive with 5 AF points - if only they were all of the same quality as the centre one...

Logged

tt

Just came into my mind before the launch of 5Dmk2, were there a lot of disappoint on the 5D AF focus? If yes, why there isn't much improvement done on the mk2? I wonder will mk3 be given at least the 7d AF system.

Just looking back at the dpreview - I would imagine not too many reviewers would have really tested it in low light conditions. Once the 5D was out and being used, the issue was known about - and i'd imagine it was then something that reviewers would have specifically in mind to check for the 5D Mark II -

Quote

the 5D Mark II would never be mistaken as a camera aimed at sports or action photographers (thanks to its rather pedestrian AF performance and overall shooting performance)

Quote

While there are still other cameras in its class with marginally higher resolution, marginally better high ISO performance, more advanced AF, faster performance, better weather sealing and more solid build quality... the 5D Mark II is certainly one of the best value for money propositions on the market for image quality - especially in RAW, where you really can see the benefit of all 21MP

From the-digital-review.com

Quote

The Canon EOS 5D is equipped with a newly developed 9-point AF unit with 6 invisible Supplemental AF points. Results include improved AI Servo AF subject tracking and improved focusing from a defocused state. I find the 5D's autofocus to be both fast and accurate - even in low light situations. Although not quite as good as the 1D Mark II and 1Ds Mark II, the 5D performs well for real AF challenges such as action sports photography. My AI Servo AF hit rate through several soccer games was slightly less than what I generally see with the 1Ds Mark II, but still very good.

I'd imagine the high profile low light photographers who were able to test and review it were more likely to hit on its relative performance.

The AF- Field in the center of the 5D MkII is very good, but the other points are significantly weaker, espacially in lower light or contrast. And I dont like the positions.....Ok, maybe I'm spoiled by my 1D Mk4, BUT even the AF System of the 50D felt better.This is a good camera, but sometimes a PITA to give this still impressive sensor the precision of Focus it needs.And no, sometimes focus/recompose is to slow!

Would anyone here be able to explain what it really is that the 7D does differently from the 5D that makes it so much better? Like many people here (probably), I learned to take pictures with a manual camera, and I am still surprised that the camera will do all that work for me. I don't understand why more "focus points" is any better.

More focus points isn't necessarily better, but if all of those points work well, then it gives you more options compositionally. If only the centre point is reliable, then you have to focus and recompose. This can cause problems in two main ways. The first is the more obvious, in that you can miss the moment while recomposing, but the second is potentially a greater problem. Many lenses (but by no means all) suffer from a change in the focal plane if you recompose. This is ok at narrower apertures, as the depth of field will mask the focus inaccuracies, but with the wide aperture lenses, the depth of field can be extremely narrow, resulting in out of focus images. The only option then is to manually focus or put up with a low hit rate and of course, in low light, manual focus is awkward. Essentially, you could say then that more usable focus points are better.

The 5D MK II was aimed at wedding photography, not action or sports. Those who wanted it to be something else, were disappointed. The camera has so many other good attributes, that if Canon were to put in a more sophisticated autofocus system, it would have undermined 1D/1DS MK III sales, so Canon did not.

Its no different than holding back high end features in a automobile that is targeted to the low or middle price range, manufacturers want you to buy the higher profit model with the nicer features.

However, Canon did listen, and came out with the 7D a year later, and it had greatly improved autofocus. Its very likely that any new 5D ?? model will also have greatly improved autofocus. If it sells more cameras, they will do it. We likely would have had new bodies last year, except the earthquake and other disasters spoiled the plans.

Given the situation now, i think canon is having a hard time to release the mk3, too good of spec it will undermined the 1Dx. Too weak of spec it will face tough competition from Nikon D800. Unlike the mk2, the 1080HD video was an added selling point. If I'm canon, I would definitely put the mk3 above D800, as the sales stay within canon. Then either weaker AF or fps on the mk3 so it wouldnt undermind the 1dx.

Until very recently I had the 5D, the 5D2 and the 7D. I stepped up to the 5D from the 20D and was amazed! Loved it to death and still kind of wish I hadn't sold it...just last week. I had originally gotten the 7D for sports but started carrying it as a second camera with the 5D2 at weddings while my wife used the 5D. When sitting down to process 2500 pictures...a mix of all 3...it was obvious the 7D was not performing like the two fives. So I got to the point that while I had it with me, I did not use it at weddings anymore. And now that the original 5 is no longer in my stable, I'm very keen to get the new 5D3. At that point, my 7 will go to my daughter and we'll sell her 40D.

I pulled out my old AE-1 today and snapped a few pictures of my 4 year old. WOW! Can you say Antique? lol If you want to complain about the focus of the fives, grab an old film camera for a day. I'm sure what's being said about the AF of the fives is probably true, but having never used anything faster I have to say I'm very happy with the 5D2! And looking forward to a new learning curve....

Would anyone here be able to explain what it really is that the 7D does differently from the 5D that makes it so much better? Like many people here (probably), I learned to take pictures with a manual camera, and I am still surprised that the camera will do all that work for me. I don't understand why more "focus points" is any better.

Also, beyond just not having to recompose, tracking moving subjects is much better with the 7D. And you can track with one of the non-center points, so you can AF on a moving subject but have the focus point not in the center of the frame. This is something that the 5DII does not do well. Even the center point does not track very well (still I agree that compared to MF it is amazing).

Still, there is a definite skill involved in using AF and just as with the 5DII or any camera understanding the limitations and working with the peculiarities of the camera is important. Someone very good at using the 5DII AF will likely do better than someone with a 7D who doesn't know how to get the bets out of it.